D&D 5E Best and Worst Damage Types

[Zardnaar]

Only if your DM uses them, though. The player doesn't have control over what critters they will face. This statistic comes up a lot in these topics, as if the DM were using a computer program to randomly select monsters. But the truth is, there can be 100% resistant/immune creatures in a campaign if the DM decides it. Or 0%. So it's always good to check with your DM before requesting a house-rule like mine.

True, depending on the battlefield size and shape that your DM is using. The player has limited control over what the battlefield is going to look like. I'm not comparing fireball to lightning bolt; I'm just describing a house-rule for a spell variant. I don't think it's as big of a deal as you say.

I'm only swapping out only the damage types--things like size, shape, range, duration, casting time, components, any extra effects, etc. remain unchanged. The result isn't an unbalanced spell; the result is more versatility for those "other damage types." Again, I'm only talking about a house-rule here, for a single character.

If you say so; I think we have different ideas of "better." The house-rule doesn't replace shocking grasp with an electrical firebolt, or even to compare one cantrip versus the other. It just gives my character a signature spell for flavor purposes.

I don't follow. Damage and Dex saves are pretty much for combat only. What you mean by "general adventuring"?

General adventuring is when you're playing a generic adventure. Or say you play a game with randoms and you don't know what to expect. Basically if you can read your DM or if the DM uses a lot of critters from non MM sources

If your DM is using lots of undead or you're in a desert or tundra area obviously things are different.

Fire is the best generally in terms of damage/area. But outside poison it has the most resistance/immunity.

 

[Dausuul]

While interesting, there is no mandate that dms use a PHB distribution of monsters. as such expect results to vary drastically by campaign.

Obviously. I don't know why you'd even bother to say that. If the big villain of the campaign is the King of Frost Giants, of course you're not going to do well specializing in cold damage.

But if you have to pick damage spells without knowing in advance what your DM is going to throw at you (which is a common situation), it's very useful to know which damage types are more or less resisted, so you can have better chances of having effective damage types in any given combat.

 

[Zardnaar]

Was going to point out the action economy of Call Lightning vs Fireball, but @Dausuul beat me to it. On top of all of that, Call Lightning uses your concentration.

I'm playing a Tempest Cleric in a campaign right now, and even I hardly ever use Call Lightning, despite the option to maximize the damage a couple of times. Using a 3rd level slot, and assuming the 65% chance to fail the save, even with the optimistic assumption that I could hit two targets each round, over three rounds at level 6, I can expect to do:

Round 1: 2 * (30 * 0.65 + 15 * 0.35) = 49.5
Round 2: 2 * (30 * 0.65 + 15 * 0.35) = 49.5
Round 3: 2 * (16.5 * 0.65 + 8.25 * 0.35) = 27.2
Total: 126.2

Suppose instead I use Spirit Guardians in round 1, maximize Shatter in round 2, and then Toll the Dead in round 3. I could of course maximize Shatter in rounds 2 and 3, but I want to try to roughly balance resource cost, figuring that the extra Channel Divinity is roughly equivalent to a 2nd level spell slot. Of course if I'm using Call Lightning I don't even have the option to expend more resources to nova. I'll make the conservative assumption that my Spirit Guardians and Shatter only catch two targets.

Round 1: 2 * (13.5 * 0.65 + 6.25 * 0.35) = 21.9
Round 2: 21.9 + 2 * (24 * 0.65 + 12 * 0.35) + 13 * 0.65 = 70
Round 3: 21.9 + 13 * 0.65 = 30.4
Total: 122.3

So, for an even resource cost, even with a conservative assumption about targets (compared to a somewhat liberal assumption in Call Lightning's case), I'm doing about the same damage using spirit guardians and one maxed Shatter that I could do with Call Lightning and two maxed bolts.

Now, under these assumptions, the Call Lightning plan looks clearly better, since (a) the damage is more front-loaded, and (b) once I have 2x Channel Divinity / SR, two channel divinity uses is cheaper than one channel divinity and one 2nd level spell slot. But if I allow for the possibility of catching three enemies in Spirit Guardians and/or Shatter, plus the option of a bigger nova, it's rarely going to make a lot of sense to use Call Lightning even on the class best suited to use it. The main exception is if you're facing flying or highly mobile creatures, in which case Spirit Guardians is tough to leverage.

Yeah I pointed this out with a light vs tempest cleric discussion. They were comparing maximised call lightning or shatter vs radiance if the dawn.

They didn't account for radiance of the dawn plus spiritual hammer then cantrip plus spiritual weapon round 2. Or fireball round 1 plus whatever round 2.

And radiance is better damage type and a Dex vs con save for shatter.

 

[Zardnaar]

Obviously. I don't know why you'd even bother to say that. If the big villain of the campaign is the King of Frost Giants, of course you're not going to do well specializing in cold damage.

But if you have to pick damage spells without knowing in advance what your DM is going to throw at you (which is a common situation), it's very useful to know which damage types are more or less resisted, so you can have better chances of having effective damage types in any given combat.

This. Lightning bus the best out if the common elemental/poison type spells.

 

[Istbor]

I say pick whatever spells make you happy. Some of the most fun times in a game is that initial dread you felt when your spell has no effect or even heals the enemy. As it is usually followed by a feeling of accomplishment for having survived a tough fight. Usually by your wits or that spell you had but never used because it wasn't badass lightning.

 

[Esker]

They didn't account for radiance of the dawn plus spiritual hammer then cantrip plus spiritual weapon round 2. Or fireball round 1 plus whatever round 2.

It's true, the fact that radiance of the dawn and therefore can be paired with casting spiritual weapon is an underrated quality.

As a light cleric I'd probably still open with Spirit Guardians in round 1 unless there was a nicely clumped mob of mooks to fireball, but then, Round 2: Radiance of the Dawn + Spiritual Weapon; Round 3: Maybe another Radiance of the Dawn, depending on the situation? Or maybe Scorching Ray if I thought there were a few enemies I could pick off with it; or just Toll the Dead if I wanted to pace myself. In any case followed by spiritual weapon on whoever in range seems most likely to die.

It also occurs to me that the friendly-fire-proof RoD makes it easier to use not on the first round, once everyone is mixed up, thereby opening up Round 1 for your concentration spell (or a fireball). I am seriously considering taking a two-level evocation wizard dip on my tempest cleric so I can blast more freely (also for a few more thunder/lightning spells).

And radiance is better damage type and a Dex vs con save for shatter.

I think you said this before, but both are CON saves. Thunder is rarely resisted, but not as rarely as radiant, true.

 

[FrogReaver]

But if you have to pick damage spells without knowing in advance what your DM is going to throw at you (which is a common situation), it's very useful to know which damage types are more or less resisted, so you can have better chances of having effective damage types in any given combat.

It's precisely statements like you made here that demonstrates why I needed to say what I said.

The breakdown of monsters in the monster manual has no bearing on what monsters and what proportions they will be used by a DM in any given campaign.

You would have a more compelling study if you looked at how many enemies that deal damage of various types are actually used in official adventures.

That said I find the numbers and breakdowns interesting but not particularly useful in determining best and worst damage types.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's precisely statements like you made here that demonstrates why I needed to say what I said.

The breakdown of monsters in the monster manual has no bearing on what monsters and what proportions they will be used by a DM in any given campaign.

You would have a more compelling study if you looked at how many enemies that deal damage of various types are actually used in official adventures.

That said I find the numbers and breakdowns interesting but not particularly useful in determining best and worst damage types.

As we said it's in general.

If your DM uses certain types of critters or vulnerable critters sure.

In any event force and radiant are always good, and con saves are the worst ones to target.